Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software

Windows XP SP2 Beta Reviewed 623

Posted by simoniker from the steel-bars dept.
worm eater writes "Ars Technica has a characteristically thorough review of Windows XP Service Pack 2 Beta, with plenty of screen shots. In a nutshell, it's all about security fixes, including a seriously beefed up firewall. The final release is expected this summer." The review concludes: "Overall, Microsoft has made a step in the right direction with this service pack. The increased focus on security will be good not only for the average user who does not spend much time thinking about security her system, but also for 'power users' and those who work supporting end users."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows XP SP2 Beta Reviewed More

Windows XP SP2 Beta Reviewed

Comments Filter:

  • hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by twiggy ( 104320 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:52PM (#7885461) Homepage
    I'd tolerate all the exploits if this thing would make me toast and coffee in the morning.. meh.

  • A review of a service pack (Score:5, Funny)

    by grennis ( 344262 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:52PM (#7885470)

    A review of a service pack? What's next, A screenshot of RTPatch? I can see it now...

    "Here we see the patch process at 37% complete. Note that the progress bar is roughly one third filled in with a nice blue color."

    Please!!

    • Re:A review of a service pack (Score:5, Funny)

      by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:54PM (#7885494) Homepage
      No, no, no. This is a review of a service pack BETA. Just the fact that someone reviewed it is news.

    • Hey, it beats the "New Cell Phone Released" articles.

    • Re:A review of a service pack (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Metaldsa ( 162825 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:10PM (#7885666)
      "A review of a service pack? What's next, A screenshot of RTPatch? I can see it now...

      "Here we see the patch process at 37% complete. Note that the progress bar is roughly one third filled in with a nice blue color."

      Please!!"

      I laughed at this post until I RTFA.
      The article was nice and informative. It let me know a pop-up blocker was on the way (I was SO going to get Earthlink :), it let me know Outlook will be better in keeping viruses in check, and finally a firewall that will help keep viruses and spyware from running on my computer.

      I suggest any Win XP user to read it as it will tell what you can configure when this comes out.

      • Re:A review of a service pack (Score:5, Informative)

        by focitrixilous P ( 690813 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:31PM (#7885871) Journal
        It let me know a pop-up blocker was on the way (I was SO going to get Earthlink :), it let me know Outlook will be better in keeping viruses in check, and finally a firewall that will help keep viruses and spyware from running on my computer.

        Cause you had no browsers with native pop-up blocking, [mozilla.org],No virus-free mail clients, [mozilla.org], and no free anti-virus [grisoft.com] for XP before now
        please...

        • Re:A review of a service pack (Score:5, Insightful)

          by oogoliegoogolie ( 635356 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @10:08PM (#7887086)
          If the free anti-virus you're using is AVG [grisoft.com], you're asking for trouble.

          I don't know, maybe Grisoft's retail version may be good, but about a year ago I downloaded about a dozen viruses just to see how well the free AVG Antivirus version, McAfee, & Norton detect them. Although far from an exaustive test, AVG missed about a third of the viruses, but Mcafee & Norton caught every one.

          Free is good, but sometimes you do get what you pay for.

          • Re:A review of a service pack (Score:4, Interesting)

            by J. T. MacLeod ( 111094 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2004 @12:13AM (#7887970)
            Working for an ISP, I've had the exact opposite experience: AVG would pick up the viruses that the Big Two missed.

            In fact, I've so far not found an instance where one slipped by an up to date installation of AVG. The caveat is that it isn't so good at deleting files which need permission changes, nor is it very good at neutering the viruses it's unable to delete.

            It's what we recommend to our customers. Then again, we can't recommend anything commercial to our customers, because they'll never install something they have to pay for, no matter how necessary.

      • ...a firewall that will help keep viruses and spyware from running on my computer.

        Not really... rather depends how the spyware runs. If it runs from inside Outlook itself, and Outlook is permitted to access the internet, then you're screwed. Likewise for any other program which is extensible.

      • Pop-up Blocker (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @08:09PM (#7886179) Homepage Journal
        It let me know a pop-up blocker was on the way (I was SO going to get Earthlink :),

        You of course realize that pop-up blocking becoming mainstream will just push sites and advertisers into another, equally or more annoying method of pushing unwanted crap in your face before you can get to the content you want.

        I can just see it, you must view the ad for 15 seconds before you can load the next page and there's no getting around it, unless you want to spend your life picking apart javascript or whatever for code to load the next page.

        What you got today is an annoyance, what you might have tomorrow is a headache. Time to get back to lynx.

  • Wow, finally.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by EvilStein ( 414640 ) <spamNO@SPAMpbp.net> on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:53PM (#7885480)
    popup blocker in IE. Finally!
    It ASKS YOU before installing random crap in the background and at least notes that "Some software could be harmful"

    Good. Step in the right direction. :D

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:54PM (#7885491)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Yet another yealot joke.... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Remember, that's just the beta. The full version can be downloaded here [daemonology.net] when it is released.

    • What's really funny is... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:21PM (#7885782) Homepage
      I almost get the sense that some folks don't want Microsoft to "take a step in the right direction" on security.

      After all, if their operating systems are actually just as or more secure, proponents of alternative operating systems can no longer use that as ammunition, can they?

      Is it worth it that systems be broken into as a demonstration of Microsoft's insecurity, so the masses and companies "wake up" (as they were supposedly already doing), just so people migrate to Linux? Necessary evil? No. No data loss is a necessary evil.

      • Re:What's really funny is... (Score:4, Informative)

        by antiMStroll ( 664213 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @10:47PM (#7887333)

        "After all, if their operating systems are actually just as or more secure, proponents of alternative operating systems can no longer use that as ammunition, can they?"

        If by some folks you mean 5%, granted. Most people are just cynical from the years of constant promises and security FUD from MS, the real reason they're happy to see them take a shot in the chones evry once in a while. But maybe this linux user's just torqued from spending a quarter his xmas vacation helping XP users clean the redirectors and spyware from their machines.

    • Re:Yet another yealot joke.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Strudelkugel ( 594414 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:43PM (#7885971)

      M$ now taking steps in the right direction. Makes me think the best thing that has happened to Softee in the past few years is Linux.

      It may very well be the case Linux will be for M$ what IBM was when IBM was looking for an OS for the PC. People may forget that Gates didn't really want to be in the OS business back then.

  • Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) * on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:54PM (#7885498) Journal
    "The increased focus on security will be good not only for the average user who does not spend much time thinking about security her system, but also for 'power users' and those who work supporting end users."

    The only security improvement that I would characterize as being "good" for those who work support end users is one which prevented them from using the computer in the first place.

    Please, God, take me now....

    (been a long day)

  • iTunes firewall exception question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06NO@SPAMemail.com> on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:57PM (#7885517)
    Does it default allowed or denied? The screenshot shows it checked (allowed) but did it come that way?

  • 'power users' ? (Score:4, Funny)

    by odyrithm ( 461343 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:57PM (#7885519)
    'power users', 'Windows'... in the same sentance.. what are you smoking? :P
    • everyone who runs windows uses power, usually somewhere around 500-700 watts.

    • Re:'power users' ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) * on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:08PM (#7885636) Journal
      "power users', 'Windows'... in the same sentance.. what are you smoking?"

      I use Windows XP on my laptop at home. I use Windows 2000 on my desktop at work. I also use FreeBSD, Knoppix, and have toyed here and there with a couple dozen other non-windows OSs. I am a 'power user' who also uses Windows. Believe it or not, we really do exist.

      In the same token, there are plenty of completely and totally clueless users of Linux. I'm not talking about the annoying kiddies babbling on message boards; I'm talking about people who actually refer to their computer as a "hard drive" or a "modem". You'll often find these types sitting on Mandrake or Red Hat boxes, not to disparage either distro, nor their users.

    • Re:'power users' ? (Score:4, Funny)

      by bathmatt ( 638217 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:15PM (#7885725)
      'power users', 'Windows'... in the same sentance.. what are you smoking? :P

      It is like slashdot poster and correct spelling...

  • Too late for some (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:57PM (#7885523) Homepage Journal
    Overall, Microsoft has made a step in the right direction with this service pack. The increased focus on security will be good not only for the average user who does not spend much time thinking about security her system, but also for 'power users' and those who work supporting end users."

    We still have a couple of W2k and XP boxes that we'll probably keep, but the damage over the past couple of years with poor security has been done. We have been migrating many of our Wintel systems to OS X for a whole variety of reasons. I really hope that this service pack works as advertised as I still own some Microsoft stock, but I am afraid that Microsoft needs to completely re-engineer the OS like they are doing with Longhorn to resolve the security problems with Windows. Unfortunately that will be in what....2006?

    • Microsoft needs to completely re-engineer the OS like they are doing with Longhorn to resolve the security problems with Windows

      Wasnt that what the aim of 3.11, 95, 98, NT4, ME, 2000, XP.. and all those I missed was? ;)

  • Finally a secure operating system for the masses. (Score:3, Funny)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:57PM (#7885526) Homepage Journal
    Wait , OMG... I must format my Gentoo build now, and install this superior Operating system.
  • i personally advise customers to *never* update their windows systems.

    i receive many calls regarding windows computers that are no longer working and when i ask when the system last worked they say before they updated. then they express their confusion at having been told to keep their system up to date.

    part of the problem is that (beyond the initial service pack for any particular microsoft product) not enough people install the updates so that the bugs in the updates are not addressed.
    • I see where you coming from, I never installed the service packs above 4 I think it was on an old NT server I use to run simply because it broke everything, these days though windows update does an OK job, its not 100% bullet proof, but its much better to be up2date than not.. for instance did you know blaster/welch will stall/kill a dial up connection without these updates(which is funny if you have ever tryed downloading the 150meg service pack 4 for win2k on a 56k dial up that stalls every 4minutes ;)..

    • Re:if it ain't broke . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrZaius ( 6588 ) <gary.richardson+slashdot@gmail.com> on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:46PM (#7886005) Homepage
      Sweeping generalizations like this are bad. You shouldn't say "Never update your windows system," you should say "Only update it when the problem affects you," or "Only update after you've thoroughly tested the patch." Both of these use common sense. Never patching is not.

      SP2 is probably going to break a lot of software. Especially the kind that is built with bad assumptions (pinging hosts, expected levels of access etc). Am I going to deploy it day 1? No. Am I going to what a month and see what everyone else says, then install it on a small test group? Yes.

    • Re:if it ain't broke . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

      by taernim ( 557097 ) * on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:51PM (#7886045) Homepage
      Then you're part of the problem, not the solution.

      When people get advice like that, they then blame Microsoft for "putting out a bad operating system" and causing all the problems like Blaster, Code Red, etc.

      In actuality, many (I'm not saying all) of the problems had been patched months and months before... but people refused to patch, either out of fear or ignorance.

      So by proudly flaunting your advice of "never updating"... you are admitting to cause more problems than you're fixing. If ever there were a time to be an AC, your comment would have been one.

      Advocating ignorance is not something to be proud of.

  • the nicest feature (Score:5, Informative)

    by Darth_brooks ( 180756 ) <[clipper377] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday January 05, 2004 @06:58PM (#7885538) Homepage
    the "never install software from..." button.

    Microsoft must be trying to bankrupt Gator / GAIN / THAT COMPANY THAT MAKES a product remarkably simliar to SPYWARE. They'll be filing for name changes once a week now.
    • The problem is, when Gator changes it's name once a week, we'll begin to see things like this:


      The web page you are viewing is attempting to download and install G4T0R EW4LLET on your PC. Do you wish to allow this download?


      [] Yes
      [] No
      [] Always trust software from G4T0R
      [] Never trust software from G4T0R

      • Re:the nicest feature (Score:3, Informative)

        by dzym ( 544085 )
        They'll have to buy a new certificate once a week then, afaict. Just remember that every time you have to click "never trust" they will have spent another $150+.
    • Finally! This and the built-in pop-up blocker and I'll probably uninstall Firebird.

      Come on Microsoft, unleash this baby!

    • Dear god yes! my hosts file was given me by another- I took a few entries out, and it works for me.. and I immediately stuck it in my Mothers, Fathers, co-workers, and work computers.. (didn't tell them either) I really hope these 'never install' will be easily moved/shared/installed from comp to comp.

  • Don't combine bug fixes with new features! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:00PM (#7885551) Homepage
    Yes, but it is not good to combine bug fixes with new features! Also, we need those bug fixes now! There are hundreds of them.

  • New "features" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ghettoboy22 ( 723339 ) * <scott.a.johnson@gmail.com> on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:00PM (#7885553) Homepage
    Shouldn't these features have been part of XP from the beginning though? That's like saying the brakes on my Ford are a new "feature". I suppose......

    All-in-all a good review. I wonder if this will raise any new "monopoly" charges though with everyone from Norton Internet Security to Pop-up blocker companies' business going down the drain - virtually overnight.

    • Re:New "features" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by glesga_kiss ( 596639 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:44PM (#7885983)
      Shouldn't these features have been part of XP from the beginning though? That's like saying the brakes on my Ford are a new "feature". I suppose......

      Oh dear gawd. Wait a minute...people complain because they include a free web-browser and it goes to court.

      Now they add more bundled software, and a highly modded user pipes up "should have been there from the begining"? Jesus. Which is it then?

      I wonder if this will raise any new "monopoly" charges though with everyone from Norton Internet Security to Pop-up blocker companies' business going down the drain - virtually overnight.

      My point exactly. They just can't win, can they?

  • Microsoft Fixpacks (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Goo.cc ( 687626 ) * on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:00PM (#7885558)
    I am generally pretty critical on Microsoft but I like how you can Slipstream a service pack into the base OS. Well, not enough to use Windows but I like it.

  • The new Internet Connection Firewall... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xSquaredAdmin ( 725927 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:01PM (#7885564)
    I work in tech support for an ISP, and quite a few calls come in where the ICF is blocking DHCP, DNS, HTTP, or SMTP requests. Does this mean that we will stop having calls about this? I doubt it, because most of the users will just assume that if they hit the 'Close' button in the alert about the app, it will be allowed automatically. Also, I'm sure that most users won't be able to figure out the 'Configure' dialog box that is there.

  • The patch for XP is 2003 Server... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:04PM (#7885599)
    I've been running 2003 as a desktop for a couple of weeks now. Haven't found one thing that ran on XP that couldn't be made to run on 2003. Everything is locked down until expressly opened. All the eye candy and useless dross from XP is turned off or MIA. Seems much peppier as a desktop and webserver than XP or even 2000. IIS 6 almost (almost) makes you forget all the crap MS released in the past.

  • Internet Explorer.. CSS compatibility updated? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xeaxes ( 554292 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:04PM (#7885600)

    IE has been updated with some good things, but does anyone know if they have fixed the numerous issues that standards oriented web developers have to work around? The png issues, box model issues, absolute positioning issues, etc?

    Microsoft is holding back many websites from doing some amazing designs because of their lack of standard compatibility.

  • wow, /.'d already -- cant get past p 3

    What I'd like to know is, are there any forced lock-ins -- such as "you only get these nice security patches which you need to avoid worms if you also install our new version of DRM, which locks you out of things you could previously do".

    Not something you could easily tell in a first review -- but it's what I suspect will be more and more common, especially as MS loses the digital battle with ITMS/ITMS-wannabes

    (and what's with the "wankerdesk" in the URL? :) )

  • Security features (Score:5, Informative)

    by n0nsensical ( 633430 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:06PM (#7885620)
    Found this article from Microsoft, might be of interest to some, "This document contains preliminary information about the security technologies in Windows XP SP2."
    Windows XP Service Pack 2: A Developer's View [microsoft.com]

  • Pop-Up Blocker? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dangerously_Swiss! ( 736947 ) * on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:09PM (#7885656)
    IE now has a popup blocker.. thereby making Telnet the last (by my count) internet-related application that does NOT have a built-in popup blocker. Are companies still paying for that shit? I can't imagine them getting anything approaching a good return on investment for popup ads these days. Unless they can get them free in specially-marked boxes of cereal, or something. On an unrelated note, why are they giving XP users a firewall? Any XP user that needs a firewall should be on 2000, if not Linux/Unix. XP is for media and third-graders. :(
    • On an unrelated note, why are they giving XP users a firewall? Any XP user that needs a firewall should be on 2000, if not Linux/Unix. XP is for media and third-graders.

      It doesn't matter who uses it or what OS it is, if it's plugged into the net it needs to be behind a firewall.

      Why? Because there are internal bugs (RPC + Blaster anyone?). Because the 3rd grader might run a trojan (BO/NetBus anyone?). Lots of reasons.

      Yea, a seperate box (even a crappy linksys router) is a better bet, but for those wit

  • Thank you linux (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Stevyn ( 691306 )
    Nothing forces a company like microsoft to improve their products than a little competition. I like how they focused on security this time. If linux for desktops wasn't gaining market share as fast as it is now, I doubt we would have seen this service pack this soon and this full of security updates. Microsoft isn't stupid, they understand why a lot of people switch to linux. They give up that "secure feeling" of windows for actual security. I don't know if this will bring back converts, but I think it

  • Need more than a Service Pack (Score:4, Interesting)

    by failedlogic ( 627314 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:10PM (#7885667)
    I wish MS would implement Service Packs as a way to add other bug fixes to the OS (generally SP's are security only), new add-ons and more features. Additionally, listening to what users want and adding these changes/features into the Service Packs would be nice.

    One of the things that make 'Nix based distros, and OS X attractive is that each new development cycle (and they tend to be quick) brings more apps and more features to increase productivity. Granted Linux depends on the developer community and OS X upgrades cost money, MS is comparatively stagnant on technology and OS improvements. MS relies on major development cycles which are generally every 3 to 4 years (e.g. 95 --> NT 4 --> 2000/XP).

    For one thing, a major upgrade to IE, Outlook Express and Windows Explorer (make it crash less) are needed. Given all the websites on "Tweaking" Windows 2000/XP, MS should give more thought into making GUI and other OS improvements before Longhorn comes out -- since that will probably be another 2 or 3 year away. In the meantime, OS X should probably be OS XI and RH (for instance) will be at version 11 or 12.

  • Why no rendering engine updates to IE? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dastrike ( 458983 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:13PM (#7885696) Homepage

    Sure it is about time that IE gets a popup blocker, but one thing I'd like to see improved about IE would be its horridly aged quirky, standards-violating rendering engine. It is the "Netscape 4" of today.

    But of course at about 95% of the global browser market share Microsoft see no need to improve that vital component of the browser.

    Internet Explorer's browser monopoly is hurting the progress badly by locking the majority to legacy HTML that we should have left behind in the 90's already.

  • Firewall only blocks incoming connections? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dachshund ( 300733 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:15PM (#7885727)
    Question about the firewall: The "exceptions" dialog indicates that the checked programs "will be allowed to receive connections from other computers." What if I simply want to prevent a program from making outbound connections, the way I can with ZoneAlarm?
  • Once, I booted WinXP for a couple of hours to do one specific thing. I didn't use a firewall because it was only for a couple of hours. Before I shut down, my machine had Blaster!

    Two days ago, I installed a small XP partition in preperation for a LAN party. My system already seems to be infected with something that hijacks Google's links.

  • From a Tech Support ViewPoint (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ironwill96 ( 736883 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:23PM (#7885799) Homepage Journal
    Speaking as a phone tech support drone for a large university, many of these changes will be most welcome. The "Blaster" incident cost our university thousands of dollars in overtime and set back all of the activities that were going on at the beginning of the school year.

    However, i'm not so sure that the fancier firewall will be such a good thing unless it is implemented properly. Ever since the newer version of AIM that came out in August or September 2003, we have been flooded with calls of it blinking on and off. These problems have been traced to ZoneAlarm - another free firewall that many people use because the one in XP was insufficient. If the new firewall has trouble with an application that is as popular as AIM is among our college students, it could create more problems then its worth for IT departments everywhere.

    It may sound as if i'm overreacting for such a simple thing, but try working in IT for a few weeks and receiving over 150 phone calls a day from disgruntled students cussing you out because they can't chat with their friends.

    Overall, its long past due that Microsoft focus on security instead of whizz-bang features that serve to slow down the O/S and cause it to be more unstable. XP Professional was a step in the right direction as far as stability, but the security issues are most definitely a large concern, especially to those of us with a phone to our ear.

    • No focus - only reaction (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mabu ( 178417 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:56PM (#7886097)
      Overall, its long past due that Microsoft focus on security instead of whizz-bang features

      Since when has Microsoft done either??

      Microsoft is reacting to the overwhelming failure of its operating system to provide even a moderate level of security! Microsoft is reacting to the proliferation of the community's knowledge and understanding that there are more secure, more stable alternatives (thanks to Linux and FreeBSD/OSX).

      What "whiz bang" features are you referring to? Popup blocking? Again, this is a three year old technology that Microsoft has tried its best to not implement but is only grudgingly deploying because other products like the Google Toolbar [google.com] have proven to be incredibly valuable and desireable by the community and its encroached into Microsoft's attempt to hijack the Internet's searching system.

      The only thing Microsoft focuses on are continued ways to milk more money from the dominant market position they have in the industry.

  • power users? (Score:3, Funny)

    by potpie ( 706881 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:29PM (#7885854) Journal
    What exactly defines the "power users" who need this new-and-improved-maybe-this-time-it-won't-suck version of Windows?

    Let's look at the word...
    Power and User come together. Obviously, this implies that the user has some kind of power. However, this user is using Windows, which gives no power to its users. Thus, this mysterious user must actually WORK at Microsoft. Now why would the staff of MS need a version of Windows with security that doesn't suck?
    the answer: to cover their asses for making crappy software.

  • "Characteristically thorough"? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:43PM (#7885973) Homepage
    Well it certainly looks like it's thorough from the title of the first page:

    Ars Technica: Windows XP SP2 Beta first look: Page 1 -- (1/2004)

    2004 pages! Now that's thorough! Oh, wait a minute...

  • Now for spyware... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chordonblue ( 585047 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:44PM (#7885984) Journal
    Note: THIS is the new machine killer. Having cleaned a disturbingly increasing number of affected machines lately (including to a smaller degree, my own!), I think that this should be Microsoft's New Frontier. "Stealth" installations of crapware need to be stopped... Somehow.

    After all, what good is your computer if it takes you 15 minutes to boot it up and crashes every 5 mins. thereafter?

  • Inexperience of posters on here with XP. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kiwioddBall ( 646813 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @07:45PM (#7886003)
    A lot of people on here give XP a bad name.

    Over 40% of the computer users in the world use XP, and most have no trouble with Blaster or random spywares, or indeed security hacks.

    There are a lot of posters in here who claim to have had so many problems with XP. Obviously then it is a lack of knowledge and experience on your part. Just because you can't get it going well doesn't mean it is a problem with the OS. Lots of Joe Home Users are very happy with it. I am a very happy XP user, and have absolutely none of the problems that are bleated on about here. Turn into real users.

    Not affiliated with Microsoft at all!! No doubt I will be called a troll by the Linux zealots in here!

    • Re:Inexperience of posters on here with XP. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gid13 ( 620803 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @08:18PM (#7886258)
      I'm a reasonably happy user of XP (also Vectorlinux and Gentoo in case anyone cares), but I still disagree with pretty much all of what you have to say.

      You claim that most users have no trouble with Blaster, spyware, and security. Frankly, most users haven't got the foggiest idea when their PC gets spyware. They tend to get lots of crap clogging their system tray and system resources, partly because they don't know any better, and partly because Windows does a very poor job of preventing such things.

      In fact, I would claim that the users with the lack of knowledge and experience are generally the ones with the least complaints, because they haven't even figured out that they HAVE spyware.

      Also, if people are forced to "turn into real users" in order to have a properly working XP, they (we) might as well learn to muck about with the nasty config files and command lines of Linux and get better native security for less cost.

    • Re:Inexperience of posters on here with XP. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shanep ( 68243 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @11:02PM (#7887424) Homepage
      There are a lot of posters in here who claim to have had so many problems with XP. Obviously then it is a lack of knowledge and experience on your part. Just because you can't get it going well doesn't mean it is a problem with the OS. Lots of Joe Home Users are very happy with it. I am a very happy XP user, and have absolutely none of the problems that are bleated on about here. Turn into real users.

      Windows XP is marketed to the average Joe, who will not fit your definition of "real users". When these average Joes connect to the internet with XP's out of the box settings, they get worms, viruses, spyware, etc.

      XP can be hardened, but not with the knowledge of the users which it is marketed for.

      I agree with one of the other posters, when he says the Joe average users who are happy with XP are actually oblivious to the reality that their PC is actually on a rampage infecting other peoples computers, sending SPAM and their credit card information. So many times I have visited client sites, only to find they have spyware, etc. And don't blame me for these problems, my introduction to these people is usually due to them having security problems in the first place.

      I come home to my mostly OpenBSD network (plus some hardened Wintel) and relax. But then, I'm not your Joe average XP user.

      I do hope XP SP2 helps and XP/Win2k are certainly leaps and bounds ahead of the Win9x abominations. But please don't try to claim that XP is great and the ignorant users are to blame. Microsoft claims to provide a stable, secure product for the World at large? Then this is a lie.

      Apple's Mac OSX is much closer to delivering that claim.

      BTW, relying on automatic updates is a dangerous game. Does XP use crypto and authentication by default for automatic updates? I would hope so. Sometimes patches are retracted, because they cause more grief than they solve. I call that a lottery. I prefer to firewall then wait before deploying patches, where ever possible.

      PS, I'll leave you with this... do you run a firewall? Do you ever watch the logs? I'm running an OpenBSD pf firewall for my home network and I tell you, watching the attempts at typical Microsoft ports coming thick and fast is scary. If you don't, I suggest you do and then come back here and tell us that "most [XP users] have no trouble with Blaster or random spywares, or indeed security hacks".

    • You're living in a dreamworld... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RebornData ( 25811 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @11:07PM (#7887459)
      I work as an independent computer support consultant servicing mostly Windows users, and I can assure you that a large portion of "regular joe" users have huge problems with viruses, spyware, and trojan horses. Most of them don't even know it- they just complain about having a lot of popup windows (spyware) or having trouble with their Internet connection (Blaster). Many of them continue to struggle to use their computer for months with these problems.

      And it's not just my clients (who obviously are limited to the set of folks who have problems bad enough to call a professional)... the percentage is high in my social network as well.

      Now yes- I agree an expert can avoid these things. I didn't even have virus protection on my primary machine for years, and yet I never got an infection. But that was because I never got attachments from untrusted sources. And I never downloaded "risky" software. But average users and even "experts" who are unfamiliar with this particular OS are vulnerable, and it's ludicrous to suggest that these huge problems are an issue of user skill.

      Frankly, from a purely financial perspective, what MS is doing is bad for my business... I really should send a nice thank you note to the turd that wrote Blaster. But something tells me I'm not going to be running out of work anytime soon...

      -R
  • Whatever about the spam blockers, the eye candy and the new wireless widget, I wonder if SP2 will detect and disable XP installations with illegally generated corporate volume license keys [google.com] in the same fashion that SP1 did.
    • All they did was some additional validation, and blocking of known-bad keys. I'm sure they'll do it again. For example, you can expect all the keys in the sp1crack.exe program to be blacklisted.

      Of course, someone will come up with another set of keys, and it will start all over again. Just don't plan to install sp2 for some time, if you haven't paid for the software.

  • distribution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nuckin futs ( 574289 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @09:20PM (#7886744)
    at 222MB, they should consider sending every registered MS user a CD. I'm sure they could afford it. During the previous security fiasco, their defense was that the patch was available but people didn't bother upgrading their systems. Not everyone is on broadband, so it has to be easier to distribute the patch the same way AOL sends those coasters. Leave it to the user to decide whether to throw out the CD or not.

Slashdot Top Deals

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Close